The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Monday, September 06, 2010

A SHERIFF'S DARK ROSWELL SECRET -- REVEALED by Anthony Bragalia

badge7.jpg

Copyright 2010, InterAmerica, Inc. [Fair Use is operative, and links are preferred but whole reproduction of this article needs permission.]

The role that was played by the Chaves County Sheriff in the Roswell UFO crash of 1947 -though of major importance- is even today not completely understood. It is also vastly underappreciated. Had George Wilcox not made the fateful call that day to the local Army base to alert them to a rancher's discovery of unusual crash debris, the true nature of the event would have spread rapidly far and wide. The details surrounding the crash would never have been able to have been contained- and we would have had all of the answers that we seek today about the event.

The extraterrestrial reality about Roswell, the Sheriff's deep involvement in the incident and the burden of his kept secret is revealed by:

* His Two Daughters
* His Granddaughter
* His Former Next-Door Neighbor (Interviewed by this author)
* Two Roswell Brothers
* The Town Mortician
* The Sheriff's Deputies

And incredibly, Sheriff Wilcox' wife also offers her own take on the crash in a little-known written account that she has quietly left for history. She personally detailed the incident in her own hand after it occured- and the document is now stored at an historical society. She speaks to the strangeness of that day and she offers us hints about her husband's ordeal and of Roswell as an ET event.

A WILCOX REDUX

sheriff7.jpg
SHERIFF GEORGE WILCOX

George A. Wilcox was the Sheriff of Chaves County in July of 1947. When rancher Mac Brazel came into the Sheriff's Office he brought with him some of the unusual materials that he told the Sheriff he had found on the Foster Ranch. Brazel had just come from the Proctors, who had a neighboring ranch. Floyd and Loretta had told Mac that he should see the Sheriff about his discovery. So Mac made the trek to town. He didn't know what the material was and he wanted to know if the Sheriff could identify the debris and help to clear it out and off the ranch. Someone was responsible and Mac wanted Wilcox to find out and follow up.

Wilcox had no idea himself what the debris was that Mac had shown him. Skeptics gloss over a vital fact: Wilcox must have been sufficiently perplexed by the material -and sufficiently concerned about Mac's story- to then have immediately called military brass at the base requesting that they investigate. Wilcox must have firmly believed that something major had transpired. He had to have been told something or seen something so alarming that he chose to involve other authorities and contact busy Roswell Army Air Field. And whatever it was that Mac showed George, it was not a piece of a balloon or balloon train, as the government states. Wilcox had a first-hand familiarity with ever manner of balloon. They fell with frequency on the ranchlands of the county that he served. He would not have gotten hold of RAAF over something like balloon materials.

After Wilcox made the call, almost instantly the County Jail was descended upon by military. Just as they had later told the Roswell City Fire Department, military men told the Sheriff and his deputies that there was no need for them to go out the site. They needed to defer the matter to base officers. One of Wilcox' daughters would later say that the Sheriff felt cut out of the picture, and though it was in his jurisdiction, he was compelled to cooperate. Had he had it do over, she believed, he would have told the press and reporters first, leaving the Army out of it.

THE SHERIFF'S DAUGHTERS: WHAT OUR FATHER SAID ABOUT THE ALIENS

phyllis7.jpg
GEORGE WILCOX DAUGHTER, PHYLLIS

George and Inez Wilcox had two daughters, Phyllis and Elizabeth. Still alive, married and retired professionals, they are both very articulate. They also both maintain that their father was involved in an extraterrestrial event at Roswell in 1947.

Phyllis (married name McGuire) shared what she knows about her family and its involvement that day in 1947:

"He had some material with him...which I did not know what it was...He said that he had sent some deputies out there and they had seen some things. They had seen a corral that had some of the material in it and they had seen a large burnt spot on some grass about the size of a football field." She said that two of the deputies had found "an area of blackened ground" which appeared as if "something large and circular had touched down."

"When I read in the Roswell paper about the flying saucer being found, I went into his office to ask about it. I asked my father if he thought that the information about the saucer was true. He said: 'I don't know why Brazel would come all the way in here if there wasn't something to it.' He said Brazel had brought in some of the material to show and that it looked like tinfoil, but when you wadded it up, it would come right back to its original shape. He felt it was an important finding and he sent deputies to investigate."

Phyllis -as a first hand witness- is confirming the presence of "memory metal" brought to the County Jail (which she said was stored in a box within a small room in the jailhouse.) She is among a great many who reported some of the debris as "remembering itself" - decades before such shape-recovery alloys were invented.

McGuire says that she was told to leave the jail while the men discussed the matter. Phyllis said that although she wanted to know additional information about what had transpired, her father would not say anything to her. Finally her mother Inez told her to stop inquiring of her father about the incident and to "leave it alone."

Phyllis now states that her mother -only once- briefly spoke of the event to her. Phyllis says: "In the early 1970s she told me more about what happened. "What was it?" I once asked her." Inez replied, "Alien." Phyllis recounts that she then asked her "Were there bodies?" to which Inez said, "Yes, there were bodies. One was still alive when they were found but it eventually died."

Phyllis continued that she was told by her mother, "They had large heads and eyes but small bodies. She said my dad felt very sorry for them. I got the impression that they were not given good care, that they were treated as enemies." Phyllis further relates: "My dad did tell her the whole thing. She always knew. She didn't mention anyone else who was involved. They said they would kill the whole family." Of her dad she says: "I think that he felt badly about not telling me something. But then again he might have been trying to protect us."

GEORGE WILCOX' DAUGHTER, ELIZABETH

Wilcox' other daughter Elizabeth (married name Tulk) attested to what she knew about the event:

"In July 1947 I visited my parents in Roswell, NM. On the day my husband and I arrived, there were jeeps and some Air Force people at the County Jail. My husband Jay aksed my father what was going on. My father said, 'Well we had this man come in here saying there was this flying saucer and brought him a piece of it. He said it looked like burned grass out were the material was found."

"My mother would not talk about the event for years. However, as the years went along, my mother would say, 'Remember the time we had the flying saucer in Roswell?' I know an article she wrote and it said that we do not know to this day if it was a flying saucer because they told my father not to say a word."

Tulk indicates that she believes that deputies had gone out to the crash site before the arrival of military to the County Jail. She said that they arrived back but had not located the crash site itself. But they did locate a large circle-shaped blackened area that was baked hard. Later, when the deputies tried to go out there again, the military had cordoned off the area and there was no way to get to see anything further. Elizabeth's husband Jay confirms what Elizabeth has related to researchers about the event.

The talk of a burned out area associated with the crash by the Wilcox family is interesting. Others (including RAAF officers Lewis Rickett and Chester Barton) also independently spoke of a large burned or baked area. Undertaker Glenn Dennis had also mentioned seeing metal pieces in the backs of trucks at the base that appeared "burned as if high heat were applied." This "burn clue" mentioned by the Wilcox' family supports that they are indeed telling the truth about the incident. The government maintains it was a balloon that crashed at Roswell. A balloon cannot burn and leave a baked circle in the desert.

THE SHERIFF'S GRANDDAUGHTER: "THEY WERE SPACE BEINGS"

alien7.jpg

Barbara Wilcox Dugger is the granddaughter of George and Inez Wilcox and the daughter of Elizabeth Wilcox Tulk. Barbara had lived with her grandmother Inez for a time after George had passed. She was there to assist her widowed grandmother. Perhaps because time had passed -and because of the closeness and trust that the widow had with her granddaughter- Inez opened up to Barbara even more about the incident than she did with Barbara's mother. Inez was referred to in the family as "Big Mom." According to her granddaughter, one day when they were together watching TV, a show came on that had mentioned the subject of UFOs. Barbara recounts that her grandmother then said:

"Barbara, tell me, do you believe that there is life out there in space? I said, Big Mom you know that I do." Inez continued, "I must tell you something. But you must promise me that you will never talk to anyone else about it. Please keep this to yourself. When it all happened, the military police came to us in the Sheriff's office and declared that if we, George and I, ever said a single word about the affair to anyone at all, they would kill not only us, but also the whole family." Barbara asked her grandmother if she believed that they would actually carry out such threats. Inez replied, "What do you think?"

In Barbara's own words, she recounts what her grandmother had privately and reluctanty related to her:

"She said someone had come to Roswell and told him about the incident. My grandfather went out to the site. It was in the evening. There was a big burned area, and he saw debris. He also saw four space beings. One of the little men was alive. Their heads were large. They wore suits like silk. After he returned to his office, my grandfather got phone calls from all over the world. If she says it happened, it happened. My grandmother was a very loyal citizen of the United States and she thought it was in the best interest of the country not to talk about the event...she said nothing." Barbara added: "She said that the event shocked him. He never wanted to be Sheriff again after that."

THE SHERIFF'S WIFE PUTS IT IN PRINT: "IT WAS A SECRET WELL KEPT"

crashed6.jpg

In its reference records The Roswell Historical Society holds a little-known document that is truly historical. Written decades ago, this document was authored by George Wilcox' wife Inez. Inez and George were inseparable. They lived in a residence above the jailhouse and she would help out around the office and assist George in running operations. Inez knew what George knew.

Inez had thought enough about the crash incident to commit some of the details about it to print that her husband could not. The fact that she did so shows that the incident had a lasting impact on her, and that Roswell was indeed discussed (and even here documented in a memoir) "before all of the hoopla" with the publication of the Roswell books of the early 1990s.

The narrative, entitled "Four Years in the County Jail" was about what life was like for a lawman and his wife in the rural West. Inez thought that perhaps it could be carried one day in a magazine like Reader's Digest. Inez includes a brief (and somewhat cryptic) mention about the crash in her unpublished manuscript. She relates, in part:

"One day a rancher north of town brought in what he called a flying saucer. There had been many reports all over the United States by people who claimed they had seen a flying saucer. The rumors were in many variations: The saucer was from a different planet, and the people flying it were looking down over us. The Germans had invented this strange contraption, a formidable weapon...Since no one had seen a flying saucer (up close) Mr. Wilcox called headquarters at Walker Air Force Base (formerly RAAF) and reported the find. Before he hung up the telephone almost, an officer walked in. He quickly loaded the object into a truck and that was the last glimpse that any one had of it."

"Simultaneously the telephone began to ring, long distance calls from newspapers in New York, England, France and from government officials, military officials and the calls kept up for 24 hours straight. They would talk to no one but the Sheriff. However the officer who picked up the suspicious looking saucer admonished Mr. Wilcox to tell as little as possible about it and refer all calls to the base. A secret well-kept."

Of course -according to her daughters and granddaughter- Inez knew far more than she had written in her draft article. Perhaps though, in her own way, Inez left a hint for history. Inez died at age 93 and for decades held inside her a truth that was no doubt impossibly hard to bear. Supporting this, Wilcox' daughter Phyllis says: "Mother put a short description of what happened in 1947 on paper, which I suspect she wrote before talking to us about the event. Possibly she was still afraid to talk, but even more concerned that the story would be lost."

THE DEPUTY SHERIFFS: "WE KNOW NOTHING"

Wilcox' two deputies were implicated as involved in the incident by several people. They had gone out to see the crash and saw a strange burned out area and a military cordon surrounding the site. Still, Deputy B.A. "Bernie" Clark (who also took the initial report from rancher Mac Brazel about the discovered debris) and Deputy Tommy Thompson were very coy with both their family and to inquiring researchers about ever answering any questions whatsoever about the Roswell crash incident.

Deputy Tommy Thompson (now deceased) once when asked about the Roswell crash and his involvement, replied "I don't want to get shot." It was not entirely clear that Thompson was jesting. Thompson told a researcher that he was "not at the office that day" when the crash occurred. Thompson did however confirm one thing: After the crash his boss George Wilcox was "finished, destroyed." And in fact Wilcox never did seek or run for County Sheriff again.

Deputy B.A. Clark (also now deceased) was similarly tight-lipped about the affair. He would say very little of substance about the matter, even to his own sons Gene and Charles Clark, even though they that knew their father was there at the time. What could silence these two lawmen even decades after the crash incident?

THE NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR: "GEORGE CHANGED"

This author located a former neighbor of the Wilcox family from 1947. Rogene Cordes lived a "few doors down" from George Wilcox with her husband, a RAAF officer. She was at the time employed at a Roswell bank as a teller. Rogene's full story about her and her husband's knowledge of the crash event is told in an article archived on this site entitled "The General's Widow: A Roswell Tell-All."

Rogene even today (retired and in her 80s) does not like to talk about the Wilcox involvement. Though Rogene was candid and direct when she related to me other stories about her General husband and his connection to Roswell, she seemed especially reticent to comment on Sheriff George Wilcox. She would only tell me:

"George Wilcox and Inez were threatened and were afraid for their own reasons. They really did not want to ever discuss it, not even to talk about it with their friends. George changed after all that." That is all that Rogene would relate.

THE BROTHERS AND THE MORTICIAN: "WILCOX WARNED US"

threaten7.jpg

Ruben Anaya was a Roswell resident at the time of the crash in 1947. He was also a political volunteer who was very close to the Lt. Governor of NM at the time, Joseph Montoya. Anaya recounted to researchers in the 1990s his story of having driven Montoya to the Roswell Army Air Field base. Montoya, exasperated when he returned to the brothers' waiting car, related to them that he had just seen extraterrestrial beings in the base hangar and that their craft had crashed in the desert. The Anaya story is more fully detailed in several Roswell books.

What ties this into the Wilcox story is this: When the brothers returned to their home after returning Montoyo to the hotel where he was staying, Ruben explains, they had received a surprise: George Wilcox was seen waiting outside the house. They wondered what Wilcox wanted and went to greet him. But it was soon became obvious that this was not a social visit. Wilcox was there with a warning. Wilcox told them that, under the direction of the military, he was delivering a message that he needed to make clear to them: He knew that they were out at the base earlier. He demanded of them that they not say anything to anyone ever at any time about what Lt. Governor Montoya had told them out at the base.

A very similar story is told by a mortician employed at the Ballard Funeral Home in Roswell at the time of the crash, Glenn Dennis. Dennis is well-known to Roswell followers as having maintained that he was told by a nurse that she viewed an ET corpse at the base hospital. But Dennis also recounts something that is sometimes lost in the details of his story:

Dennis states that after he returned from the base to the funeral home his father was later visited by Sheriff George Wilcox. Wilcox and Dennis' father were close friends. But despite this, Wilcox made it evident that his visit was not a friendly one. He forcefully informed Dennis' father that his son must never speak about anything that he may have or thinks that he may have seen or heard that was unusual at the base. To do so would cause great harm. He wanted him to relate to Glenn that he was never to discuss the matter ever.

Though parts of Dennis' story are today placed in some question by some researchers, there is independent corroboration for this piece of Glenn's account. Former Roswell researcher John Price (himself a Roswell area resident) brought up the matter in the 1980s to Glenn's fraternal twin brother Bob, who was also Price's friend, explained to Price that he was away from the area at the time of the crash. Because of this he could not confirm or refute any his brother Glenn's story, instead saying to Price that "It is Glenn's story to tell." However Bob did say that he could though support one specific part of Glenn's story because he knew it personally to be true:

When he had returned home for a visit with his father later in 1947, Bob said that his father did mention to him that George Wilcox had earlier that summer come by the house "madder than hell" at Glenn and that his father had wondered "what kind of trouble" Glenn had gotten himself into. He also mentioned that Wilcox was accompanied by Deputy Tommy Thompson. Recall that Thompson refused to discuss the matter later with researchers, only indicating to them that "he did not want to get shot" and that Wilcox was "destroyed by the events."

GEORGE WILCOX: A SHERIFF IN SHOCK

scared7.jpg

Wilcox appears like a "deer caught in headlights" in the photo above. This rare photo pictures Wilcox while answering phone calls about the crash incident. The Sheriff was in shock. And he was caught between a "rock and a hard place." George Wilcox had his family threatened. And he was made to threaten other families. To suddenly find himself in such a situation had to have been excruciating to George.

Parts of the Wilcox story have of course been related before in various books. But here it has been detailed and "tied together" in perhaps the most complete way ever put forth. Every known element to the story has been included. New information has also been offered that provides additional insight into the event. And the Wilcox story demands further attention because it may well be the most compelling one ever told in support of the ET nature of the Roswell crash.

The story is internally consistent in all respects. This corroboration of details is rather remarkable. And far too many confirm far too much. It is frankly inconceivable that 10 people (two daughters, a granddaughter, a mother and widow, a next-door neighbor, two deputies, two local brothers and the embalmer) had all conspired to lie about all of this. If even one of them is telling the truth, Sheriff George Wilcox is indeed an historical figure who played a critical role in an historical extraterrestrial event.

Well-liked before the incident (and a sure-win for re-election) Wilcox instead decided not to run. He was clearly overwhelmed by the event. He knew that he could not run. He had seen too much and he was forcibly made to intimidate too many. And the "burden of knowledge" that we are not alone in the Universe was simply too much for a simple man. He was a small-town Sheriff who must have wished that he had never been made privy to the biggest secret in history.

62 Comments:

  • "One of Wilcox' daughters would later say that the Sheriff felt cut out of the picture, and though it was in his jurisdiction, he was compelled to cooperate."


    How was something that occured in Lincoln County in the jurisdiction of the sheriff of Chaves County?

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Tuesday, September 07, 2010  

  • Sourcerer-

    A balloon fallen on a ranch would be a civilian matter dealt with by local law enforcement, if at all.

    And, as Kevin Randle states:

    "Although Brazel's ranch was in Lincoln County, Roswell is in Chaves County.

    But Roswell was the hub of that area in New Mexico. The ranchers and the people around didn't worry about fine lines between counties."

    AJB

    By Anonymous Anthony Bragalia, at Tuesday, September 07, 2010  

  • You say that Inez wrote in "Four Years in the County Jail" that one day a rancher brought in a flying saucer. All other accounts of this episode say that this rancher (Brazel) only brought in a few fragments, not the whole 'saucer'. Inez then wrote that almost before her husband had finished his phone call somebody from the military came in, quickly loaded the object into a truck and that was the last anyone saw of it. Was it?

    You then go on to tell us that Sheriff Wilcox had to inform others of the need to keep secret everything that happened, under threat of death, and that Wilcox did this because he was ordered to by the military. So we now have not only the USAF making death threats against civilians and their families, but the local sheriff making the same threats (under orders from the USAF)!

    And presumably you accept all this testimony without the slightest hesitation.

    Questions: when did Inez first put her thoughts to paper? When was the next election to sheriff after 1947? Is it conceivable that Wilcox dropped out of the election for reasons totally unconnected with the Roswell crashed saucer, or are you afraid to concede this?

    But I am really puzzled by how this whole 'saucer' was brought in to the base and then very soon after lifted out again! This really takes the top prize for fiction writing. Pity Inez Wilcox did not take up SF as a money spinner.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, September 07, 2010  

  • "The ranchers and the people around didn't worry about fine lines between counties."


    Anthony,

    Your response is reasonable, but it is also dismissive. No matter what Brazel or the Proctors might have thought about it, the Foster Ranch was in the Lincoln County Sheriff's jurisdiction. I would think he might have had some thoughts about the events occuring on his turf.

    Has any Roswell investigator researched or interviewed the Lincoln County Sheriff's Office about the events at the Foster Ranch?
    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Tuesday, September 07, 2010  

  • You write much but say little, CDA....

    - You are splitting hairs when it comes to Inez saying that the flying saucer was brought in to the Sheriff's office. She meant (very obviously) that components or pieces of it were brought into the facility. And it has always been unclear precisely how much of the material Mac had brought to town, all of different types of debris that he showed to others, and just how the material was contained and stored.

    - Yes, Wilcox was both threatened himself as well as made to enforce silence on the matter. What do you not understand about the old saying: "Do this or else."

    - It is believed that Inez composed the manuscript in the 1960s. Her daughters say that it was done before Inez would first mention the incident to them in the early 1970s. So much for your saying that people did not write or discuss the Roswell crash until the later "hoopla" with the books and TV shows.

    - George Wilcox did not run for another term because he was destroyed by the events. This is confirmed by both of his daughters, by his own deputy Tommy
    Thompson and by his next-door neighbor Rogene Cordes. I do not know what you are insinuating about me being "afraid" to consider "another reason" for his
    not running.

    AJB

    By Anonymous Anthony Bragalia, at Tuesday, September 07, 2010  

  • "But I am really puzzled by how this whole 'saucer' was brought in to the base and then very soon after lifted out again!"

    The roswell crash debris, what ever it was, was moved along to Wright-Patterson AFB. The USAF admits this in its' 1995 report. See page 257.

    http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/fulltext/roswell.pdf

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Tuesday, September 07, 2010  

  • Sourcerer-

    Of course it was Mac himself who elected to go to the Chaves County Sheriff's office, not Lincoln County. Having made the trek to see Wilcox, it was Wilcox that he met and Wilcox that made the call. And the fact that Wilcox immediately dealt with the matter right then and there- and called base brass about it, rather than directing Mac to Lincoln County, tells us that Wilcox felt the matter urgent and of sufficient importance to himself facilitate its investigation.

    That said, I have not researched the Lincoln County law enforcement "angle."

    It is a great suggestion. Thanks.

    AJB

    By Anonymous Anthony Bragalia, at Tuesday, September 07, 2010  

  • To Frank Stalter:

    My error. I meant "brought into the sheriff's office". The whole saucer, according to Inez, was brought into the said office. Phew!

    To AJB:

    Yes I do mean Inez was writing fiction. And no, I do NOT know that "very obviously" she meant only bits and pieces and not the whole saucer. Further: I do not accept that Sheriff Wilcox stood down from re-election due to the severe trauma he suffered at knowing too much, "as a simple man", about the incident. As to wishing he "had never been made privy to the biggest secret in history", poor fellow! There were, and are, countless scientists the world over who would give ten years of their lives to have been made privy to this secret. But it was too much - far too much - for this "simple" guy. Perhaps you can tell us of his future life after 1947. Did he need psychiatric care/treatment? Did he resort to alcohol or drugs?

    Again, one man bringing that saucer into Wilcox's office is quite an achievement. A super-duper achievement indeed. Unless it was a model, of course.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, September 08, 2010  

  • To cda:
    Are you that ignorant and irresponsible to think that Sheriff Wilcox wouldn't be devastated by the Roswell events? To witness something obviously out of this world, let the military in on it, and then to be told to keep quiet or you and your family would be murdered by your own government, then told to tell your friends and neighbors the same would devastate anyone. Are you some sort of sadist or are you military? I know military and what they are capable of, do not underestimate them. There are many other worlds out there, to think we are alone in this universe is ignorance on your part. To say that there aren't other beings out there is blatantly irresponsible......

    By Blogger jae, at Wednesday, September 08, 2010  

  • "And the fact that Wilcox immediately dealt with the matter right then and there- and called base brass about it, rather than directing Mac to Lincoln County, tells us that Wilcox felt the matter urgent and of sufficient importance to himself facilitate its investigation."

    Anthony,

    There were a number of similar weather balloon/flying saucer stories in the press in the first half of July 1947. They follow this pattern: the farmer or housewife reports a possible flying saucer to a police station, sheriff's office, or radio station. Eventually an army officer arrives, identifies it as a weather balloon and its kite, and the next thing we know is the farmer or housewife has their picture in the next day's local paper holding up a rawin target.

    Taking these stories as a model, Wilcox followed something like an SOP by reporting it to the RAAF. But unlike the people in those stories, ranchers in the Roswell area were very familiar with popped balloons and their kites, and Brazel is quoted as saying he did not find a balloon, but something else he could not identify. The problem is that one way or the other, whether it was a balloon or something unearthly, Wilcox, it seems likely, would have reported it to the air field.

    But in the "SOP" case, would he have specifically called the RAAF Intelligence Office (IO)? Would he want to speak to the OIC (or did he already have Marcel's number)? If Wilcox's call was not just to the Field's phone exchange operator, but specifically to the IO and to its OIC, then that would indicate to me that Brazel told or showed Wilcox something out of the ordinary. In a sense Wilcox as the Sheriff of the county with a top secret installation like Roswell was very likely already "working with the guys" at the Air Field (who those guys were is another matter to consider).

    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, September 08, 2010  

  • JAE:

    Did I say there were no other inhabited planets or worlds out there? I did not.

    Why do you suppose Wilcox recognised something "obviously out of this world"? As a simple man (as described by AJB) how would he recognise such an object? And if he did not realise what it was, why would the military ever so inform him anyway? He had no 'need to know' did he?

    If Brazel only took in a few small fragments (as all accounts except Inez's say) then of course sheriff Wilcox would be even less likely to realise it was unearthly.

    The story, as related by Inez and her offspring, does not stand up. There is simply no way the sheriff knew the debris was unearthly. Nor would he ever have known. County sheriffs have other things to do with their time; they do not concern themselves with visiting extraterrestrial spacecraft!

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, September 08, 2010  

  • Well CDA...

    I do not understand your reasoning.

    When I spoke with Loretta Proctor last year she told me that the piece that Mac brought over "wasn't wood, wasn't metal, I don't know what it was." When I asked her if it was plastic, she replied, "No, we didn't have plastic back then, we had bakelite and it wasn't that. It wasn't anything like we have today either, like fiberglass."

    You do not need the whole craft to know that it "doesn't belong" and that it is "not from here."

    Finally, I asked Loretta, "After all of these many years, do you believe that you held something from another world?" She replied, "Yes, yes I really do."

    AJB

    By Anonymous Anthony Bragalia, at Wednesday, September 08, 2010  

  • There are many stories in the bible, written by different people, all showing different perspectives. Does that make them all false? No!! They are just different perspectives of the same stories and all are true!!!! CDA, your answers do not stand up. Why the skepticism? This story has not wavered since day one, it happened, it is truthful, and it is the biggest cover-up in recent history. I would be willing to bet that if all these people were given lie detector tests, all would prove factual. Give it a rest CDA, or are you military? Open your mind, contact and sightings are made around the world all the time. That an alien space craft crashed in a desert in 1947, is not a question, why it crashed is the question, and why is the military so bold as to threaten the lives of so many. It's people like you and the military that make this event so huge by your irresponsible comments. The truth is much more powerful, and for those of us that know what happened at Roswell, well, that makes you trivial.

    By Blogger jae, at Wednesday, September 08, 2010  

  • Greetings,

    It is well known that skeptics are military manipulated, or maybe part of the big cover-up of all times. They are the very bad guys. CDA, Lance, Tim, etc. and myself are for sure. Bhou !

    "I would be willing to bet that if all these people were given lie detector tests, all would prove factual."

    Gerald Anderson passed polygraphe experiment by Riggs for FUFOR. No one lie signs were detected. So, he was right... But it have been prooved non factual after.

    Same it should be with people, not specificaly lying intentionaly, but with false memories due to several sociopyschological "complex" principles.

    They are "sincere" in a way, but just because they have false memories which have became true memories-like imputable to more or less well known socio-psychological processings.

    Many alleged withness changed the story they made step by step, and it is evident there are intra & inter-individuals differences in testimonies concerning Roswell file and protagonists. But, you cant have both.

    The pro- ETH investigators in Roswell case, how sincere and professional they are, didn't or do use a cognitive methodology to avoid different artefacts well-known in Cognitive psychology, like :

    Contamination, intentional or not guidance to the wished answer by the investigator, hypothesis confirmation bias, false memories, retrospective falsifications, false recognition, cryptomnesia, misleading information, suggestibility, etc...

    There are NO ONE control of such well-known artefact concerning testimony in a scientifical point of view.

    That's mean, whatever believers say, that all such collections of witnesses are anecdotical for any professional of the profession (testimony scientific area).

    One more time, what some ETH proponent are doing and waiting for ?

    Send the "Roswell file" to academic, university, psychologists, etc... They will "open their eyes" if some are correct about this "flying saucer" story. Or not.

    Best Regards,

    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Wednesday, September 08, 2010  

  • Gilles, you provide witness caveats:

    "Contamination, intentional or not guidance to the wished answer by the investigator, hypothesis confirmation bias, false memories, retrospective falsifications, false recognition, cryptomnesia,
    misleading information, suggestibility, etc..."

    This a valid point and has to be addressed seriously by those who use witness testimony to bolster their Roswell scenarios.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 08, 2010  

  • AJB:
    Interesting that you spoke to Loretta Proctor last year and she replied that yes she really believed she had handled "something from another world".

    What did you expect her to say?

    Loretta has been conditioned, like all the other Roswell witnesses, to 3 decades of virtually non-stop publicity & indoctrination of an ET crash since the first book in 1980, and must have been interviewed countless times.

    I guarantee you would not have got that answer from her at the time it happened.

    And to this day she has not the slightest idea of what a genuine ET craft looks like, has she?


    Gilles:
    Sure I am in the military. So are you and all the rest of us 'bad guys'.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, September 08, 2010  

  • "Contamination, intentional or not guidance to the wished answer by the investigator, hypothesis confirmation bias, false memories, retrospective falsifications, false recognition, cryptomnesia, misleading information, suggestibility, etc..."

    Gilles,

    Can you cite an analysis of a Roswell witness' statements supporting any of the above in their case?

    All those terms are just 'drive by' caveats if they don't refer to a specific study of a Roswell witness.

    There is a difference between a false memory and an inaccurate one. An inaccurate recollection can be true otherwise. I can give an example of inaccurate-but-true of a Roswell witness, if my point is unclear.

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, September 08, 2010  

  • "Sure I am in the military. So are you and all the rest of us 'bad guys'."

    You're not a bad guy, you're just a bad debater. You bring no facts to the discussion.

    Do you know why the USAF said it shipped the Roswell debris to Wright-Patterson AFB? Do you believe it?

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Wednesday, September 08, 2010  

  • Frank Stalter:

    "Do you know why the USAF said it shipped the debris to Wright-Patterson AFB"?

    No I don't know for certain. But it is very likely that the higher echelons of the AF were concerned that the object was a Russian missile/aircraft that had strayed.

    "Do you believe it?"

    Yes I do believe this was the reason the USAF wanted it shipped to WPAFB.

    The very idea of ET craft visiting planet earth never entered their heads! I cannot say, of course, that NOBODY in Washington ever considered this idea, remotely, in July 1947.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, September 08, 2010  

  • This whole dialogue is like listening to blind persons describing a Picasso. since neither one of you were there it's ALL supposition If there is no story to tell why not simply open the books I don't think any real national treasures will suffer.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wednesday, September 08, 2010  

  • I find this a rather interesting explanation of events that occurred that day and the days that followed. Curiosity compels me to ask why there wasn't an interview available from the nurse? Also, references throughout the article to the "RAAF" should be edited to indicate "AAF" as this country had an Army Air Force before it was soon to become the USAF. RAAF stands for the Royal Army Air Force.

    By Blogger Mike, at Wednesday, September 08, 2010  

  • cda-

    Here's the USAF explanation on why the debris went to Wright Field.

    "At some point General Ramey decided to forward the material to Wright Field,
    home of AMC, the appropriate agency to identify one of its own research devices
    or a device of unknown origin. If the debris was determined to be from an
    unknown source, the AMC, T-2, Intelligence or Analysis Division, would conduct
    scientific and/or intelligence analysis in an attempt to discover its origin. But
    since the balloons, reflectors, and Sonabuoy were from an AMC research project,
    the debris was forwarded to the appropriate division or subdivision, in this case
    the Electronics Subdivision of the Engineering Division. There, it was identified
    by Colonel Duffy, under whose purview Project MOGULop erated. Colonel Duffy,
    a former project officer of MOGUL with specific directions to ”continue to monitor
    upper air programs,” was the appropriate headquarters officer to make an
    identification, which he apparently did. According to Captain (now Colonel)
    Trakowski, the officer who succeeded Colonel Duffy as project officer on MOGUL,
    after returning from the Alamogordo I1 field trip, Colonel Duffy contacted him
    by phone at Warson Laboratories and informed him that the ”stuff you’ve been
    launching at Alamogordo,” had been sent to him for identification. He described
    the debris to Captain Trakowski, and Trakowski agreed that it was part of his
    project (MOGUL)."

    Page 311 of .pdf

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Wednesday, September 08, 2010  

  • I heard about Roswell in the early 70's. You know sometimes if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's a duck. I read a de-bunker explanation in the early 70's about a globe shaped ufo harrassing and following an army helicopter somewhere in the southeast(usaf?)in broad daylight with very educated people on board, geologists I believe, and piloted by two high ranking officers with respectable credentials as officers and men, that was so absurd, ridiculous and strained that I've questioned the de-bunkers ever since that time. It was truly one of the most absurd explanations I've ever heard for an event like this, put forth by a respected scientist for a science magazine, and that has ever since made me a skeptic of both sides in the ufo world (even though I've seen a large globe UFO with my own eyes that displayed complete disregard for the laws of gravity and etc.). -Rob

    By Blogger Rob, at Wednesday, September 08, 2010  

  • AJB:

    To return to the main point of your article and the final paragraph (which is truly astonishing in its way), a few questions:

    1. Why do you say that Wilcox was a "sure-win" for re-election?
    2. When was he first elected for sheriff and how long did he serve?
    3. Was there anything else that might have deterred him from standing as sheriff again (such as family/personal matters or the desire to do something else) or are you certain it was purely to do with the Roswell ET crash?
    4. What in fact did he do after stepping down as sheriff?
    5. Do you really believe that sheriff Wilcox will go down as "an historical figure who played a critical role in an historical extraterrestrial event"?

    I'd be interested in your responses.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, September 09, 2010  

  • CDA-

    It is wisest to learn from those who knew Wilcox best. Again, from his own wife and granddaughter: "The event shocked him. He never wanted to be Sheriff again after that." And from his own deputy, who would only say that after the event, Wilcox was "destroyed, finished." And Deputy Tommy Thompson was otherwise very tight-lipped about the event, but he did relate exactly what his own family had told us. The Wilcox' next-door-neighbor Rogene Cordes also affirms that Wilcox "changed" hugely after the incident.

    In fact, CDA, those closest to him - his family, his neighbor, his Deputy -
    all say the same thing. I choose to believe them over your knee-jerk hatred of anything that anyone ever says about witnessing aspects of the Roswell event.

    CDA, you seem to live in a world absent close friends or family. But if you did have such relatives, neighbors and co-workers -and they all concurred and recounted to you the exact same thing-, would you believe them, or call them deluded liars?

    I believe that Inez Wilcox herself tells us how long they were at the County Jail. Four years, according to her memoir...

    I get the distinct sense CDA that you "protesteth too much" on this one.

    People who personally knew Wilcox say the same thing about Wilcox. But you cannot accept it - no matter who says it. Not a wife, daughters, granddaughter, co-worker, several townspeople, etc.

    Are they all a part of a conspiracy to mislead? Is it mass psychosis? Your belief that that is the case shows that you are "reaching" and that you really have no real explanation whatsoever about Wilcox...

    AJB

    By Anonymous Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, September 09, 2010  

  • Forgive me for being so persistent but...

    On p 35 of The Randle/Schmitt book "The Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell" appears the revelation that after Wilcox stood down (due to the trauma of it all), Inez stood for election to sheriff. You write that these two were "inseparable" and everything George knew, Inez knew. She suffered the same death threats as he and the rest of the family. Yet the trauma apparently did not deter her from standing for election. And if she had won, you may be certain George would still have been heavily involved in the same sort of things he was while sheriff. The roles would have been reversed. Everything she knew, he would know.

    Am I 'protesting too much' or did you forget this little point about Inez? Or is it wholly unimportant?

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, September 09, 2010  

  • (sorry if double post, but seems my yesterday reply to Don didn't appear today. In such case, will deleted the doublons)

    @ Don in particular,
    (Part one)

    "Can you cite an analysis of a Roswell witness' statements supporting any of the above in their case?" Difficult in one short reply and in english. But :

    The whole Roswell myth is probably explainable in those terms !
    It happened in Roswell 1947 the find of a Flying Saucer or Disk (June/ early July 1947 CONTEXTUALIZED terms), which have NOT the DIRECT extraterrestrial meaning like it have today or will be when Palmer, Keyhoe or Scully will change the meanings for the "public" few after, to be short, and what happened the following 30 years.

    People considered FS as insolite things, probably domestic or soviet ones to be short again. You have rewards, rush to be the first to find one, etc, as the subject is not so secret, a national "public" concern and mediatic ones, not really sensible ( 509th published a press release).

    And, for example, the "Roswell Morning Dispatch" morning edition of july the 8, mentions Disk have been found at Hillsboro and "one piece looked like tin foil"
    .
    Then, what have been found in Foster Ranch was a good candidat for one of the so called FS or Disk - contextualized - (and as it appeared or is described to be like) if someone, like Haut, have read the papers of his own town and few protagonists are facing such "tin foils materials" : Foster materials are compatible about what could be a FS or Disk at this short period. The affair spents few hours and all is identified as it was, or at it was not in fact : a "flying saucer". Period.

    A retrospective falsification, one more time, is the process of telling a story that is FACTUAL to SOME extent, but which gets distorted, embelished and falsified over time by retelling it with embellishments, because you are again and again "contacted", "interacting" by or with investigators, journalists, reading books, papers, TV show, etc..

    The embellishments may include speculations, conflating events that occurred at different times or in different places, and the incorporation of material without regard for accuracy or plausibility by all protagonists (including investigators).

    The overriding force that drives the story is to find or invent details that fit with a desired outcome, aka your believings, the "I want to believe" syndrom. The process can be conscious or not.

    (to follow)

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, September 09, 2010  

  • Gilles,

    We didn't exclude your response to Don.

    Sometimes Google/Blogger comments get lost in the internet ether, or are lumped in with other comments and we don't see them.

    I apologize for the lapse.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, September 09, 2010  

  • RR,

    You have not to apologize ! I have never think it was "exclude" ! I well know such blog "problems". It happens often in several blogs I participate. I'm familiar with, and it is important to copy past" temporaly our blog reply or... write it again ;)

    Regards,

    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, September 09, 2010  

  • Merci, Gilles,

    Vous etes un gentilhomme.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, September 09, 2010  

  • (Trying again the part two)

    Part 2

    It means that the 1947 real story gets remodeled with favorable points being emphasized and unfavorable ones being dropped. The distorted and false version becomes a MEMORY and record of a remarkable tale.

    The term is used in psychology to explain the process of creating false memories by selecting and reshaping incidents from the past to fit present needs, desire, opinion and believings, cultural ambiance, etc.. Retrospective falsification occurs in most, if not all, people, and is generally an UNCONSCIOUS process.

    And, with an objective point of view, what are the "evidences" and "materials" of this story, seriously ?

    Testimonies.

    And with an objective point of view maybe too, from which processes have proceeded or occured such testimonies : Not spontaneously in fact, no no ! (aka spontaneous deposit of testimonies in FUFOR, CUFOS, NICAP before 1978).

    All is coming first (if not all) by 2 investigators who found first a person which have no one newspapers, pictures, diary, memory of the year it happened, no personnal letter(s), etc. for an event of such magnitude, but who can be fit what wanted consciously or not Moore and Friedman.

    In the several monthes before the first book was published (1978 to 1980), a "dynamic" have occured between investigators, witnesses, asking things about a factual event, but with a methodology, consciously or not, full open and perfect to provoke false memories, embelishments due to the authority bias (I'm a nuclear scientific) and several other processings like hypothesis confirmation bias, guided "questionnary" conducting to whished answers, etc.

    The first and second books have been released. And the same processings continued, again and again, embelishing the story with new elements, like bodies and a "full" craft.

    I know this "big picture", summerized in a little reply cant seduce believers. That's normal. But after 32 years of investigation, without no one hard evidence to emphaze or illustrate the contrary or the ETH version, it is the best explanation for anyone with a minimal common sens :(

    Best Regards,

    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, September 09, 2010  

  • No, Gilles, no. Either they saw ET corpses or they did not.

    You (and Sourcerer) say they may have embellished, speculated, have been "suggestible," been "contaminated" or suffer from false memories.

    I do not buy it, sorry. Either they saw what they said they saw, or they did not.

    Skeptics are reluctant to simply calls these folks "liars." But either they are telling the truth or they are not. It really is as very simple as that!

    Why are you, CDA and your ilk unwilling to just call them out-and-out liars?

    AJB

    By Anonymous Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, September 09, 2010  

  • To AJB (and your reply to Gilles:)

    Simple black and white situation!
    Yes, I will state that any witness who says they saw ETs is a liar or is deluded, mentally confused or confabulating.

    Why? Because no such thing as ETs exist! Period.

    Is that enough for you? If it is not, it is up to YOU to prove to science that ETs do exist. I challenge you now to do so.

    Gilles: you could not have put it better. Well done.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, September 09, 2010  

  • I wrote: "Can you cite an analysis of a Roswell witness' statements supporting any of the above [memory flaws] in their case?"

    Gilles replied:

    "Difficult in one short reply and in english. But :

    The whole Roswell myth is probably explainable in those terms !"

    Do I understand you to mean that since you think it a fact that no flying saucer crashed near Roswell that any testimonial evidence to the actuality of such a crash is by definition due to lies, to memory flaws, or other errors?

    If so, I take you to mean you will not present an analysis of a Roswell witness the ET advocates deem credible, and prove how his or her statements demonstrate the kinds of bad memory you have listed above.

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Thursday, September 09, 2010  

  • "You (and Sourcerer) say they may have embellished, speculated, have been "suggestible," been "contaminated" or suffer from false memories."

    Anthony,

    You (and everyone) can call me 'Don'. I was surprised to see the 'Sourcerer' handle show up.

    I don't recall writing anything about anyone's memory.

    It is possible you think I disagreed with you about Wilcox' response to Brazel's story, and somehow that got turned into an inference about false memories.

    I wouldn't bother to respond if I didn't respect your work. I don't want any hostility between us. Let me be clear, I do not agree with Gilles about memory.

    Maybe 'Sourcerer' is useful here because under that handle back in 1997 I posted several hundred articles to alt.alien.visitors debating both Roswell and the memory issue. My position now as back then is the same. If they are not in the google usenet archive, I can give you the name of a well-known Roswell researcher who does remember.

    I may not be an ET advocate, but I am not a skeptic either (neither am I sitting on the fence waiting to be convinced one way or another). I have my own reasons for doing precise research on the Roswell crash.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Thursday, September 09, 2010  

  • Sorry Don...I was reading other posts that inferred false memories, etc and confused with your post.

    AJB

    By Anonymous Anthony Bragalia, at Thursday, September 09, 2010  

  • Gilles: "@ Don
    Heu... Seriously, my english is not perfect, but you have understood nothing of my "meanings" in two parts."


    I understand that you are not going to demonstrate your ideas about memory, re Roswell testimony, by presenting a case, an analysis of a witness' testimony that ET advocates find credible.

    Perhaps you don't understand what I mean.

    Here's something from an affidavit reported by, I believe, Pflock; there is a similar one at the beginning of Chapter 7 (as I recall) in The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell.


    "(4) In July 1947, I was editor of the Roswell Morning Dispatch,

    (5)Just before noon one day early in July 1947, Walter Haut, the public
    relations officer at Roswell Army Air Field (RAAF), brought a press
    release to me in the Dispatch office. The release said a crashed flying
    saucer had been found, taken to RAAF, and sent on to another base.

    (6) Haut had been to the two local radio stations, KGFL and KSWS, before
    coming to the Dispatch, so I gave him a bad time about that. Haut said
    the base policy was to rotate who got releases first to make sure
    everyone got a (fa)ir shake. We were a morning paper, so our edition for
    that day had long since hit the street, but I was disappointed at not
    being able to break the story on the Associated Press wire. George
    Walsh, the program manager at KSWS, had already moved the story on AP."
    (Arthur McQuiddy, 1993)

    McQuiddy's credibility is important because of another statement of his regarding comments by Blanchard, so it is important to determine just how reliable his memories are.

    What is your opinion of his statement and how does it reflect on the quality of his recollection or memory?


    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Thursday, September 09, 2010  

  • Heu Don, what's your point here ????

    I wrote : "it happened in Roswell 1947 the find of a Flying Saucer or Disk (June/ early July 1947 CONTEXTUALIZED terms), which have NOT the DIRECT extraterrestrial meaning like it have today or will be when Palmer, Keyhoe or Scully will change the meanings for the "public" few after, to be short, and what happened the following 30 years."

    etc.

    I think you must CONTEXTUALIZE the meaning of "flying saucer" or "disk" for the 1947 contemporans... It is very important, imho to understand the Roswell case (if not the key).

    I'm full aware about the AP and UP releases in July, the 8th (DX53, DX54,FRR8., etc.)

    What do you want proove here ?

    Sincerly, I dont understand the link with "my" previous points.

    Best Regards,

    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, September 09, 2010  

  • "Heu Don, what's your point here ????"


    You wrote: "The pro- ETH investigators in Roswell case, how sincere and professional they are, didn't or do use a cognitive methodology to avoid different artefacts well-known in Cognitive psychology, like :

    Contamination, intentional or not guidance to the wished answer by the investigator, hypothesis confirmation bias, false memories, retrospective falsifications, false recognition, cryptomnesia, misleading information, suggestibility, etc..."

    I am asking you to demonstrate this by analysing a witness' testimony -- a witness that the ET advocates find credible. So, far you have not and don't seem to understand what I am asking of you. So, I provided a witness' testimony (McQuiddy's). Anyone with more than a passing awareness of the Roswell story will recognize instantly what the issues are with McQuddy's recollections. So, this is not a difficult task.

    Third and last request, Gilles, to support your assertions by applying them to a real-world case.

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Thursday, September 09, 2010  

  • (continuing)

    Gilles,

    Regarding the McQuiddy statements:

    I don't see evidence of "Contamination, intentional or not guidance to the wished answer by the investigator, bias, false memories, retrospective falsifications...etc" in his testimony. If there are none in his statements, then you have to face the fact that those factors are not always present in Roswell testimony -- even if their statements are inaccurate.

    Since you assert they exist in the testimony (in fact, must exist) you ought to be able to write-up a study or two as examples of it from Roswell.

    We can then discuss whether such memory issues are important or of no significance, whether they can be normalized, so to speak, to the best evidence. And so on.


    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Thursday, September 09, 2010  

  • Don,

    Ask the Roswell myth-makers to send the "Roswell file" they have made, to all US (and world, including France loling) Universities, advocats, searchers, astronomers, SCIENTISTS, etc.

    Ask them (the Roswell myth-makers) to do it !

    Why they dont it ! Yes, you can - sic -

    Because the "retrospective falsification " will be the consensual response for scientist, they will receive... I share it.

    Sorry.

    Best Regard,

    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, September 09, 2010  

  • "Sorry."

    Too bad. I was curious what a CogSci approach to witness testimony might uncover.

    Maybe one of these days a skeptic will agree to join me in doing some Roswell 'benchwork'. I hope not to drop dead from shock if it should happen.

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, September 10, 2010  

  • "Since you assert they exist in the testimony (in fact, must exist) you ought to be able to write-up a study or two as examples of it from Roswell."

    Greetings Don,

    "I" did already such a study, but in French in 360 or so A4 pages (the book is a "big format").

    http://www.amazon.fr/Roswell-Rencontre-du-Premier-Mythe/dp/2810618623/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1284108770&sr=1-3-fkmr0

    Your affidavit mentions the factual well known event : the famous Foster ranch flying saucer or Disk CONTEXTUALIZED and the fact a 509th press release was send to, at least, 4 Roswell medias (2 newspapers and 2 radios, in my humble knowledge).

    The "problem" is how this factual event have been "falsified" post-1978.

    I mean modestly that until you do no one effort to understand what is a "flying saucer" or "disk" in end june-middle july 1947 for US citizens (an historical contextualization of the meaning), including the Roswell few protagonists, it will be imho difficult to understand how a "retrospective falsification" concerning this factual event have operated post-1978.

    Regards,

    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Friday, September 10, 2010  

  • Don:

    I can answer some of your queries.
    Taking McQuiddy's affidavit from Pflock's book we see that McQuiddy says (in paragraph 5) that the press release mentions a "crashed flying saucer". The press release mentions no such thing. It does not use the word "saucer" and it does not use the word "crash".
    These two words, particularly the "crash" are not due to McQuiddy's memories of what happened in '47 but are due to what has learned about the incident in the years 1980 - 1993 (when his affidavit was written). Hence he has suffered slight 'contamination' in his testimony.

    His other memories may be partially correct, but there is no way of knowing. The term "radiosonde" is certainly wrong. Another example: in paragraph 8, McQ says that Blanchard refused to divulge the 'real story' to him. Something is wrong here. Why, in 1947, would McQ want the 'real story' anyway? The solution, i.e. the balloon plus radar reflector (NOT radiosonde), had been publicised and the incident was dead. Are you saying that McQuiddy never accepted that solution, and kept pestering Blanchard to tell him the 'real story'? McQ goes on to say that Blanchard then told him that "the stuff I saw, I've never seen anyplace else in my life". I suggest to you that Blanchard never said such a thing to McQuiddy, and McQ is merely embellishing things he has heard about since 1980. Why would Blanchard ever say such a thing to a newspaper editor, if it was all top secret, in 1947? He would hardly make suggestive remarks like that then shut up. He would simply insist the case was closed, which it was.

    McQuiddy ends by saying it is the truth "to the best of my recollection".

    Indeed it may be, but parts of that 'recollection' are true and parts are added in later years by association and contamination with what he has learned since then. How many times was McQ interviewed before the affidavit anyway? Do you know? What books, articles, etc had he seen?

    This is precisely what Gilles is talking about.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, September 10, 2010  

  • "The "problem" is how this factual event have been "falsified" post-1978.


    I mean modestly that until you do no one effort to understand what is a "flying saucer" or "disk" in end june-middle july 1947 for US citizens (an historical contextualization of the meaning), including the Roswell few protagonists, it will be imho difficult to understand how a "retrospective falsification" concerning this factual event have operated post-1978."

    Gilles,

    I have a pretty good idea what a "flying saucer" meant to Americans in the summer of 1947. In fact I know what residents of Roswell thought about them (Lower left-hand corner of the famous Daily Record front page and continued on page four). Considering all the press coverage of the flying saucer stories, I think I have a good idea what Americans thought about flying saucers. So, consider the "until you understand" a done-deal, ok?

    Do you mean you think the story that something "unearthly" crashed on a ranch near Roswell was created de novo post 1978 out of vague memories of something like balloons and crash-test dummies?


    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, September 10, 2010  

  • "These two words, particularly the "crash" are not due to McQuiddy's memories of what happened in '47 but are due to what has learned about the incident in the years 1980 - 1993 (when his affidavit was written). Hence he has suffered slight 'contamination' in his testimony"

    If, like me, you consider the AP "Haught's Statement" to be the press release, you are correct. However, the Daily Record used the expression in its headline and in its story. Nothing need to have been learned by McQuiddy in 1980-1993. He could be recollecting accurately from 1947. In fact, because the Daily Record was the major source of news for Roswellians in 1947 and because "Haught's Statement" was not published by a Roswell paper (and in fact Haut is not even mentioned by the Daily Record story), I think it is accurate to say that for Roswellians at the time, the Daily Record story that a flying saucer was captured by the RAAF is what they mean by the press release.


    "Contamination" might have been evident if he had quoted from the AP statement, instead. You may want to revise your opinion.

    Anyway, that's not the problem with McQuiddy's story -- I am not referrring to his comments about Blanchard, but the affidavit sections quoted by me above. Yesterday, I thought it evidence that Pflock, Randle, Schmidt did not CogSci-ishly "suggest" anything to McQuiddy because the story is so obviously flawed yet they published it -- but I'm beginning to think that they didn't notice it. You haven't, either.


    Gilles wandered around it in a parenthetical comment.


    I think I'll wait a bit to see if anyone here can spot it.

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, September 10, 2010  

  • Thank you Christopher !

    Don, I have not all US newspapers, but in all articles I have readed the mention of "crash" is never mentionned, as pointed by Christopher. The terms are "capture" or "to land". As Christopher shows, it is a good example of "false memory".

    However Christopher, concerning the term "saucer", the Roswell Daily Record (July, the 8th) mentions the term "saucer" in the title (RAAF captures a Flying Saucer on Ranch in Roswell Region), as in the body of the text and in another column (about differing Roswellians opinions).

    Tony wrotes : "Why are you, CDA and your ilk unwilling to just call them out-and-out liars?"

    What a "to judge someone on mere intent" sophism :(

    The terms used above have nothing to do with "lying, lies or to lie". Contamination, false memories, cryptomnesia, confabulation, retrospective falsification, embellishments, exagerations, etc are mainly, (if not all) unconscious.

    I mean that in such processes there is not obligatory conscious willingness or desire to deceive.

    If McQuiddy have used the term "crash" for example, in the previous affidavit, is not a lie, stricto sensus, but it is coming from complex socio-psychological processes, mainly unconscious, because he is simply... human.

    The multiple exposures to different "souces" (books, not standardized interviews, discussions, etc) made a complex interaction where, finaly, that your memories is mixing many things and it becomes a thrue memory without a desire to deceive or to lie to someone realy.

    It is more complex or at least less naive. In essence, it could be great and a courtesy Tony if in the future you avoid to judge Sceptics on mere intent. I dislike such "rethorical" argument. That's not gentleman. TY.

    Best Regards,

    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Friday, September 10, 2010  

  • McQuiddy attests that when pressed, Blanchard said to him of the crash, "I'll tell you this and nothing more...the stuff I saw I'd never seen anyplace else in my life."

    McQuiddy's statement is corroborated by former Roswell Mayor William Brainerd. Brainerd said that Blanchard would only say to him, "What I saw was the damndest thing I've ever seen."

    Still more McQuiddy corroboration is provided by radio station manager Jud Roberts who said that, over a few drinks some time later, Blanchard said to him, "It was the strangest stuff I'd ever seen." He would say no more.

    Why did Blanchard say anything at all to these people? Well, the answer is rather obvious. They knew it was something other than a balloon. They knew Blanchard, and that he knew more. Blanchard told them all that he could...

    AJB

    By Anonymous Anthony Bragalia, at Friday, September 10, 2010  

  • Gilles,

    "Don, I have not all US newspapers, but in all articles I have readed the mention of "crash" is never mentionned, as pointed by Christopher. The terms are "capture" or "to land". As Christopher shows, it is a good example of "false memory"."

    Truer words about the press release were never said than George Walsh's comment "It explained nothing".


    Is there a verb in the press release that is not open to interpretation: landed, picked-up, stored...how did it land? VTOL? 3-point? Fluttering down like a flipping fish? Crash land? Deciding that "crashed" is proof of "false memory" is a bit hasty, especially if you are timing it to post-1977. The press release is form without substance and one can view Roswell research to be an attempt to give substance to that form.

    Fussing about memory , you and CDA seem to be missing the significant aspects of "The flying object landed" and the time-frame "some time last week".

    How did they know it landed (whatever sort of landing it might have been)? Would it mean someone saw it land? Or perhaps someone had been on the spot on June 28th and there was no flying object there and then they were on the spot "some time last week" and there it was?


    If it was seen to land, then someone saw it "in the air". Apropos of nothing in the way of a question recorded the Army reported (that day in newspapers) that no one had seen it in the air, and apropos of no recorded question, Mac Brazel in his RDR/AP "intereview" offers he didn't see it in the air, either. If no one saw it "in the air", then no one saw it land.


    So, someone had been on the spot on June 28th and there was no flying object there and then they were on the spot "some time last week" and there it was? Any better candidates for being there than Mac Brazel, if that's the explanation.

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, September 10, 2010  

  • Rereading my posts I realize I did not respond completely to CDA's comment regarding this from McQuiddy: "The release said a crashed flying
    saucer had been found"

    Neither the RDR nor the AP reported a "crash". This is true. The question is whether McQuiddy is reading into 1947 the "crash" stories from post-1977. If we had no evidence that there were crash stories prior to 1977, it would be difficult to argue against the assumption. However, we do have Roswell crash stories decades prior to 1977. McQuiddy is incorrect if he means that's what the press release stated, but if he means that's what the press release was about, a different conclusion can be reached. As I wrote before, it is a bit hasty to come to a post-1977 "false memory" conclusion especially about Roswell area residents involved in the 1947 story.


    I'll ask both CDA and Gilles: why do you think the press release was distributed? What was its purpose?


    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, September 10, 2010  

  • Responding to Anthony's original post:

    If Inez Wilcox' document mentions a crashed flying saucer, and if it can be more than circumstantially dated to prior to 1977, it will be the first document I'm aware of of a local person referring to a crash event prior to 1977. This would be significant as I think the other pre-1977 references come from sources that were not directly from local people.

    I think your approach to field work is a good one in this post-witness era. Stories about the crashed saucer will most likely be found in family histories, and possibly from friends and neighbors.

    My interest is in identifying the provenance of the crash story, rather than whether it is true or not. I want to know who started it, and also when and where it originated, and I want that information to come from prior to 1977. Finding a Roswell-originated document from 1947 about it would be 'platinum'. From what you've written about Inez' article, it is at least 'silver', if not 'gold'.

    Based on post-1977, the likely candidates are some of the ranchers, possibly someone in the local media, and now maybe the Wilcoxes.

    I have a question regarding Roswell, I'd like to ask you, but not on a forum...vagans at verizon net, if you have a moment.


    Regards,

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, September 10, 2010  

  • To Don:
    The press release was distributed because once Brazel came into town and told his story (with perhaps a few small fragments of the debris) and the AF got involved, the USAF had to say something. Otherwise Brazel & his family & friends would have gone public with their find and maybe claimed the $3000 reward.

    The release was a hastily written one, with things like "landed last week" (when, as you say, NOBODY saw it land!) and "loaned" to higher HQ. Versions of the release that use the word "loaned" are due to a copy-typist error over the phone. The word should be "flown". Haut had never seen the object when he wrote it. Nor did he ever since.

    The word "crash" as recalled by McQuiddy and others was either suggested by the early interviewers (i.e. 1978 onwards) or by associated memories of other crashed-saucer tales (i.e. Aztec and Scully) which came a few years after Roswell.

    The Haut release and ALL contemporary newspaper accounts create the impression that what was found was a light instrument that soft landed on a ranch and which then got fragmented. There was no "crash" of anything. There was no "explosion" in the air or on the ground. That all came in the interviews post-1978.

    The USAF had to say something once Brazel came into town and once they had gone out to the ranch to collect the fragments of whatever it was. Moreover they had almost certainly identified it correctly from the start (with perhaps slight doubts), whatever the ET brigade try to tell you. They had to send it onto AF HQ for final verification, once Haut issued his release.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, September 10, 2010  

  • Greetings,

    Same (Don), where is this document prior 1978 mentionned in Tony's article ??? He is NOT provided.

    Tony have a document (or refering to), or he havent seen by hiself.

    Platinium yes : in order to reply of ONE the questions, skeptics have adressed to Roswell E.T. proponents : Why the protagonists of an event of such a magnitude have no personnal letters, diaries, etc... ?

    I'm waiting too, Tony provides the document he claimed in his article to "exist".

    Best Regards,

    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Friday, September 10, 2010  

  • CDA,

    I think the press release defines its purpose. It is a response to the rumors about the flying disk. It says they've gained possession of a disk and it is the "reality" of the rumored disk (although it doesn't actually say they've gained possession of the flying disk of the rumors). It associates this with the "flying object" the rancher found. It may have been written in haste (or maybe finished with haste), but I think there is evidence of two writers with two different styles in it, and also a trace of a previous draft or an edit, so the flaws might not be due to haste, but exhaustion, distraction, or simply 'Screw it. Let's go with this. It'll be over in a couple hours anyway').


    The press release is form without substance -- or any substance we see in it, we've put there ourselves, with the exception of its flaws, because its authors were human and thus it is flawed, especially the landed some time last week part. As for whether something crashed or wafted down like a feather -- I don't know if anything did either way. I don't know why the rumors got such a response from the army. It suggests to me that the army wanted the rumors to cease or at least be contained.

    What were the rumors about the flying disk? If the rumors were about a flying disk that crashed on a ranch, then you can forget Scully as a source. If the rumors were similar to some of the post-1977 stories, then a good bit of the false memory caveats will have to be tossed out. If some of the post-1977 witnesses were among the originators of such rumors, some more caveats will have to be rejected.


    For me, trying to flesh out the press release is just hopping down the bunny trail. The contemporary newspaper stories are not very useful either. They didn't have any time to mull it over before it was over, and I think they welcomed that. They're flawed, as well, and there may be something to mine in that, too.


    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, September 10, 2010  

  • "...when, as you say, NOBODY saw it land!"


    Actually, it was Genral Ramey who said it according to the AP.

    "Ramey reported that so far as the A.A.F. investigation could determine, no one had seen the object in the air."

    I also recall seeing it attributed to another army source. Also attributed to Brazel in the Daily Record interview: "Brazel said that he did not see it fall from the sky and did not see it before it was torn up"

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Friday, September 10, 2010  

  • You say prove to science that et exist,not long ago a fisher man pulled up a fish that was supost to be dead for 65 million years. I say just because i cant prove it exest does not mean its not there. you know they find new life every day. Its been over 50 years why wont they show the public what was found that day if it was of this world.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Friday, September 10, 2010  

  • Gilles:
    AJB has still not answered my point of how, if the sheriff and his family were so traumatised by the incident, Inez put herself up for election as sheriff when George stood down. You would think the whole family would want to get the hell out of the area, forever.

    So I do not think AJB will ever produce any hidden manuscript from Inez about the affair. And if perchance he does produce it, will it contain anything about the crashed saucer? And how will we know when it was in fact written?
    Yes it would be 'gold' or even 'platinum' evidence if provably written during 1947-50.

    But I'd say the chances of that are zero.

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, September 11, 2010  

  • CDA -

    Enough! Are you implying the document does not exist? Call the damn Historical Society yourself! To imply she did not write "Four Days in a County Jail" is insulting. Ask Kevin Randle, he's reviewed it! You have gone from "protesting too much" to being so perplexed and stunned by this story that you must now infer that everyone who told it - and even me who recounts it- are liars!

    And I told you that the family believes it was written before Inez commented on the event to them in the early 1970s! It right there in the article in their own words!

    And yes, CDA, I am very well aware that Inez unsuccessfully ran for Sheriff herself. Women Sheriff's, however, in the 1940s, were exceedingly uncommon.

    If elected, she may well have been the only female Sheriff in America at the time.

    Though the Wilcox's may have had issues with the way things were done surrounding the event, they must have known that it was in the interest of national and global security. They were law-enforcement people for heavens
    sake! And as Inez' granddaughter says, "My grandmother was a very loyal citizen of the United States and she thought it was in the best interest of the country not to talk about it."

    Did you expect that everyone involved in the event would just "roll up in a ball" and cower for the rest of their entire lives? Are you kidding me? I lost a mother, job and almost my very life in a serious accident many years ago - all within the span of two weeks. Though I suffered and was deeply affected by the events to this day, I did not become a weak, meek man for the rest of my life. I continued on.

    And so did the Wilcox's. Tommy Thompson remained a Deputy. Glenn Dennis remained an embalmer. Jesse Marcel continued in military, etc.

    Though they all suffered emotionally and otherwise, life continues. They still did their jobs, tended to errands, took care of family...etc.

    So I really do not understand your point whatsoever. You seem to lack an appreciation for basic human characteristics. You seem to relate more to dry research, and lack even basic (and important) insight into what it means to be human.

    AJB

    By Anonymous Anthony Bragalia, at Saturday, September 11, 2010  

  • continuing on this from CDA:

    "The word "crash" as recalled by McQuiddy and others was either suggested by the early interviewers (i.e. 1978 onwards) or by associated memories of other crashed-saucer tales (i.e. Aztec and Scully) which came a few years after Roswell."


    The 'C-word' is important to my Roswell study. I divide the uses of it into two catagories, those that use it as a tag, keyword, label to encapsulate 'Roswell' and those "witnesses" who are actually claiming there was a crashed flying saucer.

    McQuiddy's usage is the first sort. I think it says nothing much about his memory being "false". The second sort, of course, is another matter altogether.

    The biggest source of "contamination" for the first sort are the news stories of July 8 and 9, 1947. It is true the "C-word" is not used, but consider what they report: "wreckage", "torn up", Army experts couldn't find enough whole pieces to reconstruct part of it, both the rancher and the army refer to it not being seen in the air (implying it had been in the air), and photographs of debris, for example. If the first word that comes to mind to describe this isn't 'crash', then it is the second word. I think that would be true of near anyone reading the stories except for those whose expertise in a discipline or career would throw up flags.

    If the newscycle had gone on for another day before "Army Debunks Flying Disk" , I think it likely the "C-word" would have appeared, fwiw.

    And even if McQuiddy's use is a matter of memory, it is insignificant.

    Setting aside the matter of how "crash" is used, every matter of fact in McQuiddy's statement has either proof or good evidence in support,
    except the conversation he reports could not have occurred when he said it did.

    So, we have truth encapsulated in error, and that is why I am not so hasty in dismissing "false memories" out of consideration.

    Don

    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Sunday, September 12, 2010  

  • Tony,

    I dont really understand why do you switch often the debat to "it is insulting", you call them "liars", ie. about the document here, for example.

    In a consensual scientific point of view, that the burden of proof is for the one claiming something. Do you agree or not in this principle and fondation of Sciences ?

    As in Sciences, you cant proove without doubt the datation of a document or anything else by only testimony used as a time measure instrument!

    There is nothing insulting to point it, dear, and nothing against the witnesses. It is how dating functions in academic areas.

    I mean the dating of a document does not occur in science on the lonely sovereignty of to remember (memory) when it was written. There is nothing insulting in this constat.

    I remember you, but you know it, scientific methods have been used to analyze Anderson famous Uncle's diary by Richard Brunelle expert (I dont amalgam Anderson with Inez, just illustrating how these methods are realy relevant and usefull to enlight the true). Such method are realy important if you want to know the true, at least for this story of document. Period.

    I dont understand then why you are so nervous when only we argue that such "platinium material", if it exists, merits another examen, concerning dating for example, than the only memory datation.

    I realy think our "ask" is realy "scientific", pragmatic and have not to be linked as you are doing in your mind with we call them "liars" or to see these calls as ad hominem attack.

    If the ask, call, etc. of verification is shown by you as ad hominem attacks, I think you are totaly of the matter here. It is just one elemnt when conducing or pretending to conduce a serious investigation. That's all.

    Best Regards,

    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Monday, September 13, 2010  

  • The REAL question is what it the government really covering up. By the methods of denial of the ETH, the majority of the public seems to beieve that the govermnet is covering up evidence of alien life. What does the goverment consider so secret, that it would rather have people believe that aliens crashed in Roswell

    By Blogger spocksarek, at Tuesday, September 28, 2010  

  • Interesting story, and new to me (possibly because being located in Switzerland; pretty much far away from US stories). All I can say, finally, is to remind all of a quote from (to the best of my knowledge) Arthur C. Clarke: "Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying!" If we speak about science, I think there would be more things calling for a thorough investigation to come to sound conclusions.

    By Anonymous Markus, at Thursday, October 07, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home